Agua corriente Un arroyo de corriente rápida puede transportar partículas más grandes que uno de corriente

The term ‗ethnicity‘ is one that regularly surfaces among African sociologists and anthropologists (Southall, 1970; Lentz, 1995) and in many other fields concerned with social and cultural life. It is frequently alternated with the terms ‗ethnic group‘ and

‗ethnic identity.‘ Aldrich and Waldinger (1990) explain that the combination of

‗ethnic‘ with ‗group‘ implies that, ‗members have some awareness of group membership and a common origin and culture, or that others think of them as having these attributes‘ (p.112). They define ethnicity as the social structures through which members of an ethnic group are attached to one another and to how such structures are used by members of the group or by others. Similarly, based on a definition of ethnic identity as ‗that aspect of a person‘s self-conceptualization which results from identification with a broader group in opposition to others on the basis of perceived cultural differentiation and/or common descent‘ (Jones, 1997 p.xiii), ethnicity has also been defined elsewhere as ‗the employment or mobilization of ethnic identity and difference to gain advantage in situations of competition, conflict or cooperation‘

(Osaghae, 1995, p.11). Both these definitions converge in the understanding that ethnicity is exercised when it is consciously employed by the social actors involved (Ukiwo, 2005). This implies that ethnicity is defined not merely by the awareness of ethnic similarities among members of an ethnic group nor by the recognition of ethnic difference between a person or group and another but, more significantly, by how these similarities and differences are put to use and mobilized.

The importance of ethnicity in the Nigerian context has been well documented (for example by Lewis et al., 2002; Mohammed, 2005; Okolie, 2009; Osaghae and Suberu, 2005; Ukiwo, 2005). The historical sketches outlined in a previous section reveals that ethnicity has played an important role in shaping events in Nigeria from the pre-colonial origins of its diverse peoples to its status as a postpre-colonial state. In anthropology, ethnicity in countries like Nigeria has being studied in four traditions:

essentialism, instrumentalism, constructivism and institutionalism (Varshney, 2002) The essentialist school of thought bases its analysis of ethnicity on the pre-existence of primitive societies. According to this tradition, these societies existed before the

arrival of the colonial rulers into Nigeria in the mid-nineteenth century and the British colonial rulers acted as ‗civilizers‗ for their primitive cultures. Scholars of a

‗constructivist tradition‘, on the other hand, focus on the colonial period of Nigeria‘s history. In their work, they underline the effort of the colonialists to amplify and reinforce the ethnic differences in Nigerian people in order to simplify for themselves the task of subjugating and governing them. By means of political persuasion or forceful intervention, they accomplished this through indirect rule, tribal categorizations and the promotion of separate settlements between natives and settlers of urban areas (Ukiwo, 2005). Theorists who analyze the instrumental role of ethnicity in the country‘s postcolonial era emphasize the role played by ‗state managers‘ who, in competition over power, economic resources, and prestige, engage in processes of promoting ethnic and regional identities by taking advantage of the values and beliefs held by particular groups about themselves and others (Okolie, 2003). Other commentators of the institutionalist tradition go further by focussing on how such actions have been institutionalized through national or regional policy with the effect of increasing ethnic identity and mobilisation at the political level. Throughout its brief history therefore, ethnic differentiation has been an important fabric of cultural, social and political life in Nigeria evidenced by the depth and pervasiveness of ethnic awareness in most parts of the country (Apter, 2005; Falola and Heaton, 2008;

Osaghae, 1995).

Depending on the defining characteristics employed, the number of ethnic groups in Nigeria ranges from 250 to 619 (Okolie, 2003; Mohammed, 2005). Historically, the largest and most dominant of these groups have been the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo. These ethnic groups are differentiated by language, culture, religion, history, ancestry and geographical settlement. The Igbos are found in the southeastern region of the country, the Yorubas in the Southwest and the Hausa-Fulani in the North.

Within these regions, there are other minority ethnic groups, which are differentiated from the major ethnic group also by language (or dialect), customs and ancestry.

Although identified by their particular locales, many of these ethnic groups have not been geographically static. In the pre-colonial era, the desire for new commodity

trading outlets impelled indigenes to migrate between the northern and southern regions within the boundaries of what is now Nigeria (Kennedy, 1988).

Subsequently, colonialism brought about rapid urbanisation as a result of the developmental projects carried out by the colonial government in the 1930s. The search for wage labour (which was believed to be widely available in the cities) meant that there was a mass movement of people away from the rural areas where activities were essentially based on subsistence agriculture. The labour demands of the growing export economy (Falola and Heaton, 2008) led to a high influx of migrant male workers which in turn contributed to the massive relocation of people to the cities in order to cater for the needs of the industry workers (Whiteman, 2012). For this reason, urban regions such as Lagos grew in population and increasingly became the permanent abode for people of different ethnic orientations. Indeed, as a result of this, the population of Lagos now far exceeds most of the other states in the country (Census, 2006). Kaye Whiteman (2012) notes that because of the influx of people with different ethnic orientations, Lagos gradually evolved into ‗a microcosm of the whole country.‘

One of the effects of the agglomeration of ethnicities in Lagos has been to diminish the intensity of ethnic affiliation among people of the same ethnic group. According to Horowitz (1998), groups tend to form among people living under identical conditions because individuals possess a ‗deep sociality‘ and require the cooperation that groups provide. In urban areas like Lagos, group affiliations appear to be becoming less based on ethnic orientation and more on economic and occupational similarities. This suggests that identity models based on ethnic origins and kinship groups are apparently giving way to those determined by economic survival through cooperation and competition. This does not mean that ethnicity no longer has any salience among people in Lagos. The findings from a survey in Lagos conducted by Langer and Ukiwo (2007) based on ‗how social groups perceive the world in which they live and act‘

showed that ethnicity is still an important feature in people‘s daily lives. The survey was carried out to find out the most important forms of self-identification for their respondents and revealed that in an ethnically diverse area of Lagos with a dense

agglomeration of informal sector activity, ethnicity (which, as they explain, was used interchangeably with language and state of origin by their respondents) still served as a significant identity marker. A more interesting finding from the research was the fact that the salience of ethnic orientation is being eroded by other identity markers such as occupation. Langer and Ukiwo (2007) do not offer any reason for this trend. However, I suggest that it may occur for two reasons. First, social networking in Lagos appears to be increasingly carried out in places where people frequently meet and interact such as churches and workplaces. Second, the relevance of social bonds is arguably becoming less dependent on the role of ethnicity and kinship as identity markers and more on their instrumental value or their potential for mobilization. In this sense, ethnic, kinship or even occupational ties may be deemed useful when they can be mobilized to one‘s advantage (Anthias, 2007). I discuss this further in Chapter 7.

A consideration of ethnicity as a key feature of the Nigerian context therefore falls within the wider frame of social capital and how social networks are mobilized by Nigerians and, specifically for my research, new media workers. There are examples from my field work that show how this took place among some of my respondents particularly in their search for new projects and contracts.

In the next section, I provide a synthesis of the discussion so far about the Nigerian context. Having examined the various issues which I deem to be emblematic of this context, I now relate them directly to the themes chosen for my study about the conditions of new media work in Nigeria: precariousness, entrepreneurialism and social networking.

3.7 The Nigerian context of new media work: putting it all together